Sitting of 6 September 1831

MINUTES.
Bill brought in. To appoint Commissioners for inquiring into Charities.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. Alderman WOOD, the quantity of Malt Spirits distilled in the Highlands and Lowlands of Scotland, distinguishing each, from October, 1823, to October, 1850; and of the quantities exported to Ireland and England, and of the quantity of Jersey and Guernsey Spirits imported during the year 1830.
Petitions presented. By Mr. LEADER, from the Inhabitants of Clare and its vicinity, praying for the introduction of Poor Laws into Ireland, and that the Property of Absentees should be doubly assessed; and from the Catholic Inhabitants of Ballyelough, and the Clergy and Laity of the tame persuasion, of Newmarket (Cork), against any further Grant to the Kildare Street Society; by Mr. H. Ross, from the Merchants and Shipowners of Montrose, against the Quarantine duty; by Mr. JAMES, from certain Inhabitants of the Metropolis, for a remission of the Sentence passed on the Rev. Robert Taylor; by Mr. DIXON, from the Glasgow Reform Association, praying that the progress of the English Reform Bill may be hastened; by Mr. GROSVENOR, from the Millers of Chester, against the Importation of Foreign Flour.

SALE OF BEER ACT.
Sir Jacob Astleypresented a Petition from sixty Clergymen, including two Archdeacons, residing in Wiltshire, against the Beer Bill. The
1190
hon. Member said, it was no doubt in the memory of the House, that disturbances had prevailed some time since in that neighbourhood; and, though he would not venture to say, that these beer-shops had caused those disturbances, he felt convinced they contributed to keep them alive, by affording a rendezvous for the idle and the dissolute. He begged to say, that he concurred in the prayer of the petition.
Mr. Benettcould not believe, that these beer-shops had anything to do with the riots to which the hon. Baronet had alluded. He could see no reason why a poor man should be debarred from going to the beer-shop for refreshment, while the tavern was open to the more wealthy. He never heard, that those shops harboured improper persons. From what he had been able to discover of the effects of the Beer Act, he thought it unobjectionable, and it should, in consequence, continue to receive his support.
The Petition to be printed.

YEOMANRY (IRELAND).
Sir John M. Doylepresented a Petition from the inhabitants of Leighlin Bridge, in the county Carlow, praying that the Yeomanry of Ireland might be disarmed, in which prayer he cordially concurred.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that he had been requested to support the prayer of the petition, which he was most happy to do. It had been stated by the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, that orders had been given that no more arms should be delivered to Yeomanry corps, but he had been informed, that a recent issue of arms had taken place. He regretted much to hear that, for the greatest disaster that could befal his country would be, the general arming of the Yeomanry.
Mr. Blackneysaid, this petition was signed by both Catholics and Dissenters, who were all most anxious to have its prayer attended to, and such, indeed, was the general wish of the people of Ireland.
Mr. Shawhoped the Government would not be induced by these petitions, to disarm the Yeomanry of Ireland, whom he considered to be a most useful body of men. They were the only protection the loyal part of the people had in some districts in Ireland.

NEW LONDON BRIDGE.
Mr. Huntpresented a Petition from Peter Jeffery,

1191
a respectable individual, an inhabitant of the City, upon a subject of considerable importance. The petitioner stated, that he had devoted a great deal of time and attention to the progress of the New London Bridge, and that he had discovered it had been built in so bad a manner, that the two arches on the Southwark side of the bridge had sunk eight inches and a half below the proper level of the bridge. Some of the other arches had also sunk below the level, varying in degree from three inches and a half to five inches and a half; but the two extreme arches had sunk to the extent he had already stated. The petitioner asked the House to institute some inquiry into the subject of the building of this bridge, for there were various defects in its construction, which ought not to exist in a public work of so much importance. He wished to know from some of the hon. members for the City, whether the Committee appointed to manage this work, had taken any security from the contractors for the manner in which it was to be completed, and for its stability? He hoped they had, for he understood from this petitioner, that for filling up the backs of the arches, bricks, and not stones, had been employed, and that these bricks were so bad, that they almost pulverised between the fingers. The public had subscribed largely for building the bridge, therefore the Government had a right to interfere. It was clear there had been some gross mismanagement; he feared it would turn out one of those City jobs, which were generally of too gross a character for him to describe. He trusted, that some inquiry would be made, and that the public would be made acquainted with the cause of the bridge sinking. That it had sunk he was well aware, for he had that morning taken the trouble to go and examine it himself.
On the question that the Petition do lie on the Table,
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, he was sure that the House would not alarm themselves with the idea that the bridge was in danger of falling, and he could assure them that there was no cause for any such fear. This was the first time that he had heard any doubts of its stability. He believed that there was no foundation for any such doubts; and it would be difficult to find any instance of a public building in which there had been such
1192
good work, such good materials, and so much attention employed. In answer to the question put by the hon. member for Preston, he begged leave to say, that they had taken security for the due and proper performance of the work—they had taken security to the amount of upwards of 200,000 l. He must say, that he was astonished at some of the complaints now made by the petitioner; for Mr. Jeffery had written to him the other day on this subject, and had not then, in the slightest degree, alluded to the insufficiency of the materials, which now formed one of the subjects of his petition. He trusted, that the House would agree with him, that there was not any necessity for their instituting a formal inquiry into this matter; but he promised that he would himself set on foot an immediate inquiry into the circumstances stated in the petition, and he believed he should be able to convince the House, that its allegations were unfounded.
Mr. Alderman Thompsondid not believe, that there was the least ground for alarm on the subject. The sinking which had been observed, was only that average sinking which all new buildings were subject to. He regretted, that those individuals who now talked of the badness of the materials, had not had the manliness, during the whole time that had been occupied in building the bridge, to come forward with that complaint while the work was in progress, and when the evil could at once have been remedied. The hon. Member had been pleased to call it a City job; what the hon. Member meant he did not know, but it must be in the recollection of the House, that the Corporation of London had given all the opposition in its power to the new bridge being built, as it considered that the old one might have been repaired; but, when a new bridge had been decided on, the Corporation had been most anxious, that a substantial structure should be erected, which would do credit to the metropolis. He believed that there was no public work which would be found to do more credit to all those concerned in it, than the New London Bridge.
Mr. Alderman Venablesexpressed an opinion of a similar kind, and declared his conviction that the allegations in the petition were unfounded.
Mr. Hunt Mr. Hunt moved that the Petition be printed.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonbegged the

1193
hon. Gentleman would postpone his motion until the next day, to which Mr. Hunt agreed.

BISHOPRICK OF DERRY.
Mr. Humerose to submit to the attention of the House a subject of which he had given notice. It was one of considerable importance, and he had, therefore, felt himself called upon to bring it under consideration this day. He had already more than once postponed the subject, and he should not have brought it forward—so unwilling was he to do any thing that might for an instant tend to delay the progress of the Reform Bill—but that circumstances had occurred which rendered him unable any longer to postpone his Motion. What he should afterwards do, would, however, depend upon the answer he obtained to the following question: He wished to know, what was the intention of the Government as regarded the filling up of the vacant bishoprick of Derry?
Lord Althorphad no hesitation to give an answer to the question of the hon. Member. The Motion of which the hon. Member had given notice related to the revenues of the see of Derry. It was his opinion, that this was a question well worthy of the consideration of the Government, and he was ready to state, that the Government had taken into their consideration the question to which the hon. Member had alluded. It appeared to him, that although it would be improper to turn the revenues appropriated to the support of the Established Church to any other purposes but those of the Protestant Church Establishment, still the question would be different, if, by an alteration in the distribution of these revenues, the poorer clergy might be assisted in a better manner than at present, without diminishing, in any improper way, the support required for the maintenance of the rank and station of the superior clergy. That was the view which the Government had taken of the subject; but when the question was looked at in that view, it appeared more proper, that if any steps of the kind were taken, they should be taken with reference to the question generally, and that the change, if any, ought not to be made applicable to one individual instance. The Government, therefore, had not taken any steps with regard to the see of Derry in particular; but whoever should be appointed to that bishoprick would be so appointed,
1194
upon the understanding that no rights he might acquire by that appointment would be allowed to interfere with such an arrangement, if, at any time, any such arrangement should take effect. This was the state in which the question now stood; and having made this statement, he trusted that the hon. member for Middlesex would feel it to be sufficient, and would not think it necessary to proceed further with his Motion.
Mr. Humesaid, he had no hesitation in saving, that he was perfectly satisfied with the statement just made by the noble Lord opposite. It now appeared, that, the Government intended to act upon a general principle; and if they did so, it would bring the whole question fairly under consideration. Under these circumstances, he should be sorry to press the question further at present, lest it should turn to harm instead of good.
Motion withdrawn.

QUARANTINE DUES.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonrose for the purpose of submitting to the consideration of the House the Motion of which he had given notice, relative to the Quarantine Dues, and, in doing so, he called their attention to the report of a Select Committee, appointed to consider the subject some years ago. That Committee condemned the whole of our quarantine system, and, more especially, that part relating to the mode of levying the fees. The Report stated—"The Committee are convinced, that the charge of quarantine should be borne by the public, and not by the shipowners or merchants, as the quarantine is imposed solely for the protection of the public. The Committee recommend to the House to remove and abrogate all fees now paid by ships performing quarantine." It was in consequence of the recommendation of this Committee that the tonnage and poundage duty was repealed, and other changes in our commercial policy took place. Shortly after this a Bill was brought into Parliament for the consolidation of the quarantine laws, and it distinctly stated, that all Acts were repealed, and all fees were abolished, except those authorized by Act of Parliament. There was no Act to authorize the levying these charges. The preamble of the Act 6th George 4th, cap. 78, said—"Whereas it is expedient to repeal the several laws relating to the performance of quarantine, and to

1195
make other provisions in lieu thereof; be it therefore enacted by the King's most excellent Majesty, &c., that from and after the 1st day of June, 1825, all and every Act, and all parts of the Acts of Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland respectively, and of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, relating to the performance of quarantine, or relating to the charging any duty or duties upon vessels which may be liable to or have performed quarantine, shall be, and the same are hereby repealed, save and except such Acts and such parts of Acts as relate to the payment and recovery of any duties imposed by the said Acts or parts of Acts, which shall be due and unpaid on the 1st day of June by any person or persons under any or either of the said Acts," &c. &c. It was his opinion, that since the passing of that Act, founded upon the Report of that Committee, the levying of those duties on the shipowners was illegal. In the first place, the fee itself was heavy, being 5l. 14 s. 6d., but the way in which it operated was particularly oppressive, for no difference whatever was made in the fee, no matter what might be the size of the vessel. Thus it happened in one instance, that a vessel from Hamburgh, having only a cargo to the amount of 16 l., had actually to pay nearly 6l. for quarantine dues. Independent of this, there was so much trouble and loss of time, that the fee in reality amounted to 7l. or 8l. for the shipowner had to send his clerk to attend at the Council office. It might be said, probably, by his right hon. friend, that the shipowner or merchant must receive this sum back in freight. He must deny, that this would be the case, for it was impossible to calculate upon the probability of a ship being compelled to perform quarantine. He knew that was the case with ships coming from the Baltic; for when the agreement, relating to the freight was made, the shipowner had no conception that his vessels would have to endure it. He believed, that in no other European country were such heavy charges made. He freely admitted, that for public safety, the Government had a right to impose a quarantine upon, all vessels coming from infected places, but then the expense of this ought to be thrown upon the public, and not upon individuals, particularly where it operated so very unequally, a ship of 600 tons burden paying only the same fees as a vessel of the
1196
smallest class. The hon. Alderman concluded by moving a resolution to the effect—"That it is inexpedient to subject vessels placed under quarantine to the payment of the sum of 5l. 14 s. 6d. for their order of release by the Lords of the Privy Council."
Mr. Dixonseconded the Motion; in doing which, he observed, that he could add nothing to the forcible statement of his hon. friend. It must be evident that the shipowner was harshly treated, by having these fees exacted from him, when the quarantine was established for the public benefit.
Mr. Poulett Thomsoncould not altogether agree in the principle laid down by the hon. Alderman, that this was a tax on the shipping interest. It was a tax paid in aid of the revenue of the country; in the first instance, by the owners of ships, but ultimately by the consumers; and the shipowners, of course, had a return for the amount thus paid, by charging an increased rate of freight. Without entering further into the general question, however, he would at once admit, that it was an impolitic mode of paying a certain sum into the revenue, and he had the pleasure to state, that it was the determination of his Majesty's Government to put an end to the payment of this duty altogether, on the 1st of next January. When the hardship of this payment was commented upon, it should be considered, that the expenses of the quarantine establishment averaged 30,000 l. a-year, and it was not so very unreasonable, that ships subjected to the quarantine regulations should pay a certain sum towards defraying this expense. If the expense of the quarantine establishment was not provided for in this way, it must be provided for out of the general revenue, and he thought, that much more than the sum received in this way was expended in carrying into effect the quarantine regulations. He contended, that the owners of ships trading to the Baltic had not been taken unawares by the levying of this tax on them during the last year, as they had chartered their ships with the full knowledge that it was to be exacted. He could not at all agree with the proposition of his hon. friend, that the duty should be immediately relinquished on ships coming from the Baltic, because it would be saddling the country with an additional expense, and making the owners of the ships which should ar-

1197
rive during the remainder of the year a present of that sum. He had no objection to give them the benefit of that sum, but on the present occasion he thought it would not be fair to the public. The hon. Alderman said, that the sum received during the present year, under this head, exceeded the amount on former occasions, by 25,000 l. or 26,000 l. It was to be considered, however, that its proportion to the whole expense of carrying into effect the quarantine regulations was not greater than before. The whole amount of the expense had necessarily increased, and it would be unfair to the country at large to increase it further by forfeiting the fees due on the ships which should come for the next half year. Under all the circumstances, he hoped, that the House would concur with him, that it was advisable as regarded the revenue, and only just to the country, not to carry into effect the determination of Government before the time stated. The hon. Alderman said, he knew of no country in which the quarantine fees were so considerable as in this. Now, he (Mr. Poulett Thomson) knew of no country in which they were so light. In all parts of the south of Europe, quarantine dues were a horrible exaction, and he believed it would greatly promote the general interests of commerce, if we could induce foreign countries to follow our example, and reduce these fees.
Mr. Warburtonwas happy to find, that the difficulty was reduced to such narrow limits. The only question was, whether those fees were to be abolished in the middle of September, or on the 1st of January, 1832. So long as those fees were retained, it would be granting a bonus to ships to evade the quarantine regulations, and, therefore, the sooner they were taken off the better. He agreed that the tax fell, like all others, eventually on the consumer; but it was not fairly levied in this instance. The small vessels paid as much as the large, and the owners of the small vessels could not possibly bring back the money into their pockets by an increase of freight. He hoped, upon every ground, that the tax would be immediately taken off.
Mr. Maberlythought the Government had met this question with great firmness and fairness, and that they ought not to be pressed to reduce the duty sooner. It was admitted, that the tax ought not to continue to be levied on individuals, but
1198
its abolition was postponed till the 1st of January, because a large proportion of the vessels subject to quarantine had already paid; and he thought the shipping interest ought to be satisfied with the assurance, that they would have to pay the tax no longer than up to the 1st of January.
Mr. Humehoped to be able to convince his Majesty's Government, that they ought, not only immediately to reduce the tax, but, that they ought to repay what they had received from the owners of vessels trading to the Baltic, since January last. It had never before entered into the head of any individual, to charge vessels coming from the north of Europe a quarantine fee; and the freights of those vessels, from time immemorial, were calculated without any reference to such a charge. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was actually in possession of 25,000 l., or 30,000 l., which he ought never to have had; and if he (Mr. Hume) had a ship clearing out, he would resist this charge as illegal. Those fees, when levied on the Turkey and Levant traders, were not intended, originally, to defray the expense of the quarantine charges. They arose out of an abuse in the public offices, and it was in 1784, on finding their enormous amount, that a Committee recommended, that they should be applied in aid of the public revenue. It was never contemplated, under the Act of Parliament imposing quarantine regulations, that the owners of ships should pay a shilling fee, and, as a matter of justice, the exaction should be put an end to at once. When the rate of freight to the Baltic was considered, and the increased expense to which the owners were subject for provisions and wages, consequent upon the quarantine regulations, it was quite clear they could not put a shilling in their pockets for freight; and it was very hard, under such circumstances, to oblige them to pay a fine of 5l. 14 s. 6d. As a matter of fairness and right, he hoped the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would consent to abolish the duty immediately, and to refund what he had received from the Baltic traders.
Mr. Maberlysaid, he had suffered, and was suffering, by the payment of those dues; but he had no objection that they should be levied until January, and then finally abolished.
Mr. Humesaid, it was very well for his hon. friend (Mr. Maberly) to speak for

1199
himself; but he (Mr. Hume) spoke for others who were not so well able to afford to pay those dues as his hon. friend.
Mr. George Robinsondid not think that the owners of ships trading to the Baltic, ought to be exclusively considered. They were subjected this year to the quarantine fees, because a contagious disease prevailed in that part of the world, which made it necessary to place them under quarantine regulations. Government had expressed its willingness to concede the abolition of those dues; but he could not at all agree with his hon. friend (the member for Middlesex) that the reduction should be retrospective, and that Government should refund the fees received since January last. If the measure was retrospective, they should go back much further than January. He thought it would be entirely satisfactory to the shipping interest, if the fees were abolished from this day forward.
Sir Matthew White Ridleyexpressed his satisfaction at the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. P. Thomson), that it was intended to discontinue demanding those fees after the 1st of January next; but he should have been much better pleased if the quarantine fees were abolished at the present moment. The amount of this duty was very small when compared with the general revenue, and he thought his noble friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would be conferring a great benefit on the shipping interest if the duty was made to cease from the present time. The sum of 5l. 14 s. 6d. was really a great object to many persons in the shipping trade.
Lord George Bentinckagreed with the hon. member for Middlesex, that under the 5th George 4th, Government was not entitled to levy any fee whatever on the owners of ships subject to the quarantine regulations. The tax pressed very heavily on many of the shipowners of Lynn, who had to pay it perhaps three times in a season. It was a great mistake to suppose that this tax did not fall exclusively on the shipowners. Ships going to the Baltic had to compete with those engaged in the North American trade, and a shipowner having the option of going to either place for a cargo, would, of course, prefer that place not charged with these fees. The shipowner trading to the Baltic was not able to raise his freight, and consequently the loss fell on him.
Lord Althorpobserved, that, looking at this as a mere question of justice, he thought the fees should not cease until the month of January. The vessels were chartered under the impression that the tax was to be paid, and it was more just that the ships now abroad should continue to pay when they came back, until the end of the present year. He had heard nothing to convince him, that the arrangement proposed by his right hon. friend was not consistent with justice.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonsaid, that if the tax was to be abolished instanter, he should not press his motion; but otherwise he could not consent to withdraw it.
Lord William Lennoxstrongly urged the worthy Alderman to persevere in his motion. It was unjust that ships of 250 tons should pay the same as those of 600. Besides, as most vessels in the course of the year made two voyages, most ships had already paid one fee; it would be quite fair to take the fee off from the present time. It seemed doubtful whether the tax was legal; at all events, it was highly inequitable, that individuals should pay for the benefit of the public at large.
The House divided on the Resolution: Ayes 20; Noes 64—Majority 44.

BANK OF SCOTLAND.
Mr. Herriesrose to move for copies of the Charter of the National Bank of Scotland, and for certain papers which were connected with the subject. He apprehended no opposition would be made to his Motion. His object in seeking to obtain a copy of the charter was, to call the attention of the House to some defects of omission in that document, which he thought admitted of an easy remedy. For example, he thought the responsibility of the principals in the bank, not sufficiently secured, as he would explain to the House on a future occasion. The right hon. Gentleman concluded with moving for a copy of the Charter granted to the National Bank of Scotland, and the papers—including the opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown—relating thereto.
The Lord Advocatesaid, that no objection existed on the part of the Government to the production of the documents moved for by the right hon. Gentleman. The Charter granted only the power of suing and being sued through the Company's authorised officers—an arrangement which he would endeavour to show was

1201
the best, in a national point of view, which the Law Officers of the Crown could, under the circumstances of the case, have sanctioned.
Mr. Humewished to know what course the right hon. Gentleman meant to pursue, when he had obtained the papers?—whether to alter the Charter, or move for its repeal?
Mr. Herrieshad no intention to infringe on the Charter, or to make any alterations, other than that of supplying some deficiencies in its details, to which he would shortly call the attention of the House.
Mr. Maberlythought, the principle of suing and being sued through the bank's officers a good one, but he hoped that Ministers would in no way lend themselves to bestowing upon any Company a monopoly.
Mr. John Campbellsaid, as the law at present stood in England, partners escaped from individual liability; it would, therefore, be a great benefit, if similar Charters could be granted in this country.
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, that every Government was bound not to grant particular privileges to one person at the expense of another. Nothing was more common than for Companies to start up, with a supposed capital of three or four millions, of which, probably, only about five per cent had been paid up, yet they deceived the public by putting up "sanctioned by Act of Parliament," while the sanction only was, to sue and be sued by their proper officers; the public were, therefore, liable to be imposed upon. Government should take care, that all capital should be paid up in the shares of Companies, to whom they granted Charters.
The Motion for the returns was agreed to.

ACCIDENTS BY STEAM VESSELS.
Colonel Sibthorp,pursuant to notice, rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the best means of preventing the occurrence of accidents in Steam-vessels. The hon. Member said, he was induced to bring forward this Motion by the strong public feeling, and deep sympathy, which the recent loss of the Rothsay steamer had given birth to; and hoped, that the result of the Committee's labours would be, securing the public against a recurrence of such a deplorable calamity.
Mr. Lambentertained by no means very sanguine hopes from the labours of the proposed Committee, but still was
1202
willing to give it a trial, as a means of allaying public excitement, and convincing the public mind, that the occurrence of these lamentable accidents was in no ways imputable to the neglect of Ministers or Parliament.
Motion agreed to, and a Select Committee appointed.

CROWN DEBTORS.
Mr. Huntrose to move, pursuant to notice, an Address to his Majesty, that he would be pleased to release all Crown Debtors now in prison, at the ensuing ceremony of the Coronation. The hon. Member said, that in bringing forward this Motion, he was influenced by an earnest desire to promote those feelings of regard to our patriot Sovereign, which at present were so prevalent among all classes of the people. The releasing those Crown debtors, whom he particularly alluded to, he meant those who were confined for arrears of taxes, fines, and other debts to the Crown, and not those who were confined for a violation of the Customs or Excise laws—so far from being detrimental to the revenue, would be actually a national saving. Experience had shown, that in nineteen cases out of twenty of those confined for debts to the Crown, of the class which he had just specified, the revenue never recovered a single farthing, while the nation was put to the expense of supporting them in prison. For example: he knew one case of a person who was imprisoned in Somersetshire for sixteen years, for arrears of taxes to the amount of 34 l., all which time his support was defrayed at the expense of the county, at an annual cost of 30 l., though ultimately he was discharged without paying a farthing, from total inability. Besides, therefore, effecting a national saving, the Address would, if acted upon, be just now felt by the people as a special act of grace, in the best sense of the term. He begged, therefore, to move, "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying his Majesty to grant an act of grace to all Crown Debtors on the approaching Coronation."
Mr. Humeseconded the Motion, on the ground, that he had ever advocated the principle, that debtors to the Crown should be placed on precisely the same footing with debtors to private persons. He had hoped, that the hon. and learned Member, who had recently taken up the

1203
cases of those unfortunate people who had been confined for Contempts, would also have done the same with regard to Crown debtors, and have prevented their being detained in prison when they had not the means of discharging the debts.
Lord Althorpwas sure the House would at once see the inexpediency of acceding to the hon. Member's Motion. It was objectionable even in its form of wording—so far as it included "all" Crown debtors; and was highly objectionable on principle. If it was right, that his Majesty should, of his own free accord, discharge the Crown debtors from prison, it was plain, that the grace of the act would be done away by the proposition's not emanating from his own royal clemency, but from that House. And if it was not right, it was equally plain, that the Motion must appear neither more nor less than an act of censure, on a matter on which Parliament had no right to interfere. Upon these grounds he was prepared to resist the Motion.
Sir Edward Sugdenwas willing to place every confidence in the discretion of Ministers with respect to the Crown debtors. He had no intention whatever, he begged to inform the hon. member for Middlesex, to introduce any remedial measure with regard to Crown debtors.
Mr. Huntbegged to say, that, after the declaration of the noble Lord, he would not persist in his Motion. In withdrawing it he must add, that he never meant the remotest censure on Ministers or his Majesty; and he thought, he was forwarding the humane and enlightened designs of both with respect to the poor debtors—unfortunately, a very numerous class at this moment. He was one who highly approved of the approaching ceremony of the Coronation, and merely wished to add to its éclat by an act of well-timed mercy.
Motion withdrawn.

RELEASE OF DEBTORS.
Mr. Hunthad given notice of another motion, but he understood it could not be entertained by the House in the way he had proposed; he would therefore move that on Friday the House should resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to consider of an Address to his Majesty, for the advance of a sum of money to be appropriated to the discharge of debtors for small sums, confined in his Majesty's
1204
various gaols throughout the United Kingdom. When the House should have gone into Committee, supposing his notice should now receive its sanction, it was his intention to move that the sum of 24,000 l. be appropriated to that purpose. This sum was what the Coronation robes of his late Majesty cost. He thought that on a day of public rejoicing, like that of the Coronation, such was a proper period for giving to the poor debtors, who, it was said amounted to about 10,000 persons, and many of whom were now lying in prison for debts under 5l. their discharge. He trusted that his Majesty's Ministers would take the subject into their serious consideration.
Sir Charles Forbes,in seconding the Motion, said, he hoped that Ministers would approve of the measure—he was sure it would receive the approbation of the country.
Lord Althorpsaid, it did not appear to him that the Motion now made was one to which the House ought to accede. However much their feelings might be moved, they were bound not to indulge them; nor did he think that there were so many persons confined for small debts as the hon. Member seemed to imagine. They might take the benefit of the Insolvent Act if they pleased. He should therefore feel it his duty to oppose the Motion.
Mr. Humeagreed with the noble Lord who had just addressed the House, that the present motion was one which could not be countenanced by the House. With respect to what had been said on persons being imprisoned for debt, he begged to observe, that he hoped some measure would be brought forward by Government to abolish imprisonment for debt, being fully persuaded that such a course was highly injurious to individuals and the public at large. He wished to ask whether any measure was in contemplation, founded upon the report of a Commission which sat two Sessions ago, to inquire into the subject? from the result of whose labours he hoped some means would have emanated to prevent persons from being imprisoned for such small sums.
Lord Althorpsaid, he wished the subject to be brought forward, but not in the shape proposed by the hon. Member.
Sir Edward Sugdenhoped that it would not be understood, from what had now transpired, that the law of imprisonment for debt was to be abolished.
Mr. Huntregretted to understand this was a case in which the House would not interfere, but he begged to remind the, noble Lord that 15 l. debt was necessary to enable a man to take the benefit of the Insolvent Act, and many of the unhappy people for whose release he was anxious, were imprisoned for sums not amounting to 15 l.
Motion negatived.

REFORM—PAYMENT OF BARRISTERS.
Mr. Bernalbrought up the Report of the Committee of the whole House on the resolution proposed last night relative to the payment of Barristers.
Mr. Humecould not allow this resolution to pass without dissenting from it. All expenses of elections ought to be defrayed by the counties. He saw no reason why the people of Scotland, who had to pay for their own registration, should also contribute to the payment of that of the people of England.
Report agreed to.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR ENGLAND—COMMITTEE—THIRTY-NINTH DAY.
Lord Althorp,in moving the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into a Committee on the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill, expressed a hope that they would let the Bill get through the Committee that evening, even though it should lead them to sit to a later hour than usual.
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, that he had no wish to prevent the noble Lord from accomplishing his wish to get this Bill through before the Coronation; at the same time he must object to their sitting much beyond their usual hour.
Lord Granville Somersetcould not accede to the proposition of the noble Lord. He had himself a clause to propose as soon as the Committee got through the present clauses of the Bill; but he could not think of bringing forward that clause at half-past one or two o'clock in the morning.
Mr. Hunthoped the remaining clauses would not be hurried through the House: some of them he considered among the most important in the Bill.
Mr. Wilkshad given notice of his intention to incorporate into this Bill a clause, enacting that Parliaments should not have more than a triennial duration. Now, as the present Bill was only a local
1206
Bill, being for the Reform of the Representation in England and Wales merely, and as the two other Reform Bills were also locals bills for Scotland and Ireland respectively, he was of opinion that a clause of a general description could not properly be introduced into any one of them. Though he was more and more convinced of the necessity of making Parliaments triennial, he was now of opinion that a separate bill would be the best mode of effecting that object. He should, therefore, not introduce the clause of which he had given notice. At the same time he begged leave to state, that in the next Session of Parliament he would move for leave to bring in a bill to prevent the continuance of any Parliament for more than three years.
Sir Edward Sugdenwas glad that something at least would be left for a new Parliament to do.
The House then went into Committee.
The forty-fifth clause, by which counties are to be divided into districts for polling by Justices in Sessions, was agreed to after some slight verbal amendments.
On the proposal of the forty-sixth clause, which relates to the erection of booths at the polling places,
Sir Edward Sugdenexpressed his former opinion, that it would be found impossible to carry the machinery of this clause into operation in the case of a contested election; the time allowed was too short.
Mr. Hughes Hughessaid, that there was good reason why the booths should be provided by the county, and paid for at the county expense. That expense would be very trifling, if they could be made so as to be put up and taken down at every election. They might also be used for other county purposes.
The clause was then agreed to.
The forty-seventh clause was then put, which makes provision as to the Sheriff's deputies, the custody of the poll-books, and the final declaration of the poll.
Mr. Houldsworthcontended, that this clause would amount to a perpetual obstruction to all free elections in counties for the future. From calculations he had made, he found it would be impossible that the electors in large counties could be polled in a contested election at different places, within the time limited.
Lord Althorpdefended the clause: he

1207
could not enter into such nice calculations as those which the hon. Member appeared to have made, but, in general, as contests would not take place without some motive, the Sheriff would be aware of them, and take the necessary measures without difficulty.
Mr. Hughes Hughesbegged to call the noble Lord's attention to the frequency with which contests arose on the day of nomination, without any previous intimation; and if these remarks were applicable; to counties, they were still more so to cities and boroughs, where an election might commence on the day of nomination.
The clause was then agreed to.
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, from the wording of this clause, it would appear that the state of the poll could not be known until the conclusion of the contest. The effect of this would be, an election must always continue until the termination of the time allowed.
Lord Althorpcould not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, because it was impossible to suppose, that this provision of the Bill could prevent any candidate from obtaining the necessary information as to the state of the poll, by which he could regulate his proceedings either to retire or go on.
Mr. Houldsworthsaid, that might be the case in boroughs, but in large counties the state of the poll could not be known where the polling places were widely separate.
Sir Edward Sugdensupposed telegraphs would be established, for no other method would enable the candidates to obtain the necessary information.
Clause agreed to.
The forty-eighth clause, relative to the commencement and continuance of polls at borough elections, was next read.
Mr. Hughes Hughesbegged the noble Lord would inform him, that as this clause provided that the poll should commence on the day of nomination, or on the third day at the outside, who was to regulate that?
Lord Althorp: the returning officer, of course.
Mr. Hughes Hughes: then that should be expressed in the clause; it ought not to be left in any uncertainty.
Mr. John Campbellsaid, in his opinion, the returning officer was the proper person to have this discretionary power—he would, no doubt, consult the convenience of the candidates.
Mr. Wilksdiffered from the hon. and learned Gentleman. The returning officer might have a political bias, it might be the interest of one candidate to put off the election until the last hour allowed, and the interest of the other to commence it immediately: as little ought to be left to the discretion of the returning officer as possible.
Lord Althorpsaid, something must be left to his discretion, although it was, undoubtedly, right to confine it as much as possible.
Mr. Wilkssaid, he should move, that the following words be inserted in the clause "as the candidates at the election may agree, or, in case of their disagreement, as the returning officer shall direct."
Mr. John Campbellsaid, these words would never answer; suppose there were three candidates, two on one side and one on the other, then the returning officer must decide.
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, that probably these words would apply better "at the discretion of the returning officer when the candidates shall not agree on the day."
Mr. Cresset Pelhamsaid, if the nomination was fixed for an early day, another candidate would be prevented from coming forward, and the returning officer might be prevented from giving due notice.
Mr. Wilkssaid, the clause only applied to contested elections, and the nomination was the time at which the contest was to begin, and from which all the arrangements must be made; consequently no new candidate could start after that, and this provision was a great improvement on the old system in that respect.
The Chairmansaid, the question was, that after the words "at the latest, on the third day," it was proposed to insert "unless that shall happen to be on a Sunday, and in that case, on the Monday following;" and the amendment proposed was to insert in addition "at the discretion of the returning officer in case the candidates shall not agree on a day."
Mr. John Campbellsaid, the returning officer ought not to be controlled by the candidates. The elections ought to begin forthwith, or on a specific day to be named in the Bill.
Mr. Wilkssaid, it was well known, that in certain boroughs, the elections ought to begin forthwith, from the time of nomination, to prevent the political predilections

1209
of Mayors and Corporations influencing the elections. He wished the time, therefore, to be left to the candidates, who had a mutual interest to prevent expense and disorder.
Mr. Huntsaid, they must have time to erect booths where there were many voters, and no building appropriated for that purpose.
Amendment agreed to.
On that part of the clause which provides that the polling "shall continue for two days only, that is to say, for hours on the first day of polling, and for hours on the second day,"
The first question was, that the first blank be filled up by the word seven.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonobjected, that seven hours were too short a time to enable the contesting parties to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. Courts at law sat for a longer period, and even that House usually devoted more hours than seven to business.
Lord Althorpreplied, that this number of hours had been appointed in order to prevent the polls being kept open at an unseasonable and inconvenient time in winter, when nightfall would necessarily interfere with the progress of business.
Mr. Alderman Waithmansaid, that in the City of London they had, by the present system polled 8,600 voters in six days, and he thought they could, by the divisions and polling places to be provided, terminate their elections within the two days now allowed.
Sir Charles Wetherelltook the present opportunity of inquiring from the worthy Alderman, how his constituents, the Livery of London, for whom he had a high respect, liked that addition to the whole Bill, by which renters of rooms, lodgers and warehouse-keepers, were let in among them. He was afraid, that the worthy Alderman and his constituents, did not approve of that addition, and that they did not understand fully the nature of the Bill.
Mr. Alderman Waithmansaid, he believed he understood the Bill as well as the hon. and learned Gentleman. At all events he would not take his reading of it.
Sir Edward Sugdenproposed, that "seven hours at least on the first day" should be inserted; and the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion was ultimately agreed to.
The next question was, that the second
1210
blank be filled up with the words "eight hours," for the duration of the poll on the second day.
Mr. Huntbegged to ask, whether it would not be better to fix the hour at which the polling should commence.
The Attorney Generalsaid, there was no occasion for such a provision; and it would be better certainly to fix a precise number of hours for the polling on the second day; if it were otherwise, a temptation might be held out for the returning officer to prolong or shorten the period for some purposes of his own.
Agreed to.
The Proviso was then put, "That nothing in this Bill, should prevent the closing of the poll, under any circumstances under which it may be closed at present."
Agreed to.
The clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The 49th clause, regulating the polling for boroughs in England and Wales at several booths, so that not more than 600 should vote atone compartment in a booth, and providing that if the booths are in different places, a deputy of the returning officer to preside at each place—was next put.
On the question, that the second part of the clause, for the erection of separate booths, be agreed to,
Colonel Sibthorpobjected to the clause, as separating the candidate from the electors. He would rather meet his constituents face to face, and hear every objection that could be urged against his conduct: on that account he trusted, that the noble Lord would submit to some modification of the clause.
Clause agreed to.
The next part, "That the Sheriff or other returning officer, may appoint a deputy where the booths are erected in different places—put.
Mr. Huntcomplained that sufficient notice would not be given to the electors of the compartments in which they were to vote.
Lord Althorpthought, the clause as amended, would be sufficiently explicit in that respect.
Mr. Huntwas afraid some difficulty would still be found with regard to the districts of large towns.
Sir Charles Wetherellthought, the clause would be utterly impracticable. In a large and populous town, Manchester, for

1211
instance, where there were from 30,000 to 40,000 voters, it would be impossible for the returning officer so to divide the place into compartments of 600 voters each, so as to close the election in two days.
Mr. Stanleyobserved, that the hon. and learned Member did not seem to be aware that this impracticable plan had been already in operation during two elections. A bill was introduced by the hon. member for Worcester, and had passed, empowering the returning officer to divide large towns into compartments, with 600 voters in each, and under this arrangement the last two general elections were conducted.
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, that his hon. and learned friend was perfectly aware of the Act in question, but it was applicable to a state of things wholly different from that which would exist under this Bill. By this Bill the polling would last only two days, though the number of constituents would be greatly increased.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, the great objects of his remarks was, to endeavour to save time and expense at elections, and therefore, to demonstrate that the noble Lord's plan was impracticable, and would only lead to confusion, The Act the hon. Gentleman had quoted he was perfectly aware of, which was only fit to be applied to Oxford or Worcester, for which places it was intended. Its provisions would wholly fail in the extraordinary geographical boroughs they were about to make.
Mr. Huntwas of opinion that the classing parishes in different booths would tend to confuse the electors, who would not know where they should go to vote.
Mr. Wilksthought, that in small boroughs the division of booths was unnecessary and inconvenient.
Mr. Stricklandsuggested, as a means of saving expense, that instead of enacting that the returning officer, at the final close of the poll, shall keep the poll-books unopened till the following day, and then declare the state of the poll, it should be "as soon as conveniently may be."
Lord Althorpadopted the suggestion of the hon. Member, so far as to add at the end of the clause the words "provided always that the returning officer or his legal deputy may, if he think fit, declare the final state of the poll, and make his return, immediately after the poll is finished."
The proviso was added to the clause.
On the question being put, "that the
1212
clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Wilkssuggested, that the clause should not be applied to boroughs where there were not 1,000 electors.
Lord Althorpsaid, such a limitation would not be convenient.
Mr. Robert Gordonproposed the following addition to the clause;—"Provided always that no nomination or election of a Member to serve in Parliament shall be held in any church or chapel or other place of public worship."
Sir Edward Sugdenfully concurred with the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member.
Mr. Crokerconcurred in the proposition, though he thought it unnecessary, as the practice was even now illegal.
Mr. William Peelsupported the Amendment, which was agreed to.
The clause, as amended, to stand part of the Bill.
On the question being put on clause 50,
Mr. Hughes Hughes Mr. Hughes Hughes moved as an Amendment in the first part of the clause, that "all booths to be built for the convenience of taking polls shall be erected by the Sheriff or other returning officer, at the expense of the county, city, town, or borough, requiring the same; and the same shall remain the property of such county, city, town, or borough." His object in this was, to diminish the expense of elections, which was the professed object of the Bill.
Sir Edward Sugdenwould oppose the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. He was ready to admit it had one advantage, if advantage it could be called, it seemed to offer a premium to strangers to obtrude themselves as candidates, where they were not known, at the expense of the county rates. If they desired the poor man to pay for the ambitious desires of the rich, they would agree to the Amendment.
Lord Althorpobserved, that if this proposition were adopted, it would be necessary to empower the counties, cities, towns, and boroughs, to raise a tax to defray the expense of booths. He thought it not unreasonable to lay the expense on candidates.
Mr. Crokerremarked, that it was a most extraordinary proposal that the booths should be the property of the returning officers. He supposed this was what the hon. Member would call a mare's (Mayor's) nest.
Mr. Cresset Pelhamsaid, it would be

1213
much better to dispense with the Assistant Barristers, and appropriate the funds which were to pay these learned gentlemen, to the erection of polling booths
Captain Spencerbegged to ask, if houses might not be employed to take voters in as well as booths.
Lord John Russellsaid, there was nothing in the Bill to prevent that being done, if it was found more convenient.
Amendment withdrawn, and clause agreed to.
Clauses 51 and 52 were agreed to.
On the question being put on clause 53,
Lord Granville Somersetintimated, that it was his intention to move that a new district of boroughs be formed in the county of Monmouth, for the purpose of sending one Member to Parliament.
Lord John Russellsuggested that this was not the proper moment for this Amendment. The noble Lord could bring it forward at a future stage, and if it were adopted, the clause should be altered accordingly.
Lord Granville Somersetsaid, he should be prepared to do so to-morrow.
Mr. James L. Knightrecommended a provision, that each voter in a contributory borough should be entitled to vote in that borough alone.
Lord Althorpsaid, a considerable disadvantage would result from such an arrangement.
The clause was carried.
Clause 54 also carried.
On the Chairman putting clause 55,
The Attorney Generalobjected to including the Barrister with the Sheriff and other officers, who, by the clause, were rendered liable to actions for damages for wilfully contravening the provisions of the Act.
Mr. Wilkssaid, if the Barrister was to be excused from being liable to penalties, the Overseer of the Poor should also be exonerated.
Lord Althorpwas inclined to concur with his hon. and learned friend, as the Barrister had no positive duty to perform but that of giving judgment, and for which, if his judgment were corrupt, he was liable to proceedings under other statutes.
Mr. Wilksrepeated, that the returning officer and Overseer, ought to be relieved from penalties as well as the Barrister.
The Attorney Generalsaid, if the penalty was inserted in the Bill, he was satisfied they would not get Barristers to act.
Lord John Russellsupported the clause, and contended that the Barrister had positive duties to perform.
Mr. Huntsaid, the Attorney General was checking the rope just as the Bill began to run: he seemed to wish to make a distinction between lawyers and other people.
Lord Althorpproposed that the clause should be passed, with an understanding that it might receive some modification, should the House think proper, when it was moved to bring up the report.
The clause carried, and the two blanks left for the insertion of the maximum of damages were filled up each with 500 l.
Clause 56 carried nem. con.
Clause 57 put. It was proposed to insert the sum of 10 l. in the blank left for the maximum of fine upon any person voting at an election by means of fraudulently assuming the name of any rightful elector.
Mr. Cresset Pelhamtrusted that this clause did not supersede the former penalties for such a transgression [cries of "no, no."]
Mr. Wilksthought the fine by far too small. He should propose the sum of 50 l.
Mr. Huntwould vote for even 25 l.,but certainly he thought the fine ought to be much greater than 10 l.
Colonel Sibthorpthought 50 l. a proper amount of fine.
Lord Althorpwished to state, that in addition to the fine the offender would be deprived of his franchise for life.
Mr. Hughes Hughessuggested, that cases might occur in which the offender might not have any franchise to lose.
Mr. Wilks'sproposition adopted, and the blank filled up with the words "fifty pounds."
Clauses 58 and 59 carried.
The Chairman put the question, "That clause 60 (the last clause) stand part of the Bill."
Colonel Sibthorpdeclared that he had opposed the Bill fairly and fearlessly. His side of the House was cheered by the supporters of Ministers, as if they had got through their labours. He could tell them that their labours had only commenced. He did not understand being treated with contempt. He would tell those who laughed at him, either in the House or out of the House, that he would support his opinions and vindicate himself to the last hour he had to breathe. He regretted that the Bill had passed through the Committee

1215
so soon. The Bill had passed too speedily. If his opponents were tired, he would not give up. He would never give in. He was never yet put down in that House, and never would be. He was never put down out of the House, and he defied the hon. Member opposite, who was laughing at him, to put him down. The hon. Member had supported the Bill conscientiously, and why did not the hon. Member give him credit for having opposed the Bill with equal sincerity? He prayed to God that the Bill might not pass. If the Bill did pass, which he prayed to God might never be the case, all he had to say was, in the words of that great and sublime statesman, now admired, and who, he fervently trusted, would have his memory for ever preserved in that House—"Oh, save my country and the Sovereign." He felt confident that the Bill would not pass—such a Bill never could pass.
The Chairmanbegged the hon. Member to give him permission to state simply what was the question before the Committee. It was, that after the words "be it enacted" the word "Treasury," &c. be inserted.
The clause put, and the Chairman saying "As many as are of this opinion, say Ay," the House resounded with cheers. "As many as are of the contrary opinion, say No." One or two voices feebly uttered "No." "I think the Ayes have it." [loud cheers.]
Clause agreed to.
Lord Althorpproposed two clauses, the first was to fulfil the suggestions of the hon. member for Bodmin, and provided that no freehold of a less value than 10 l., held for a life or lives, should hereafter entitle any person to vote for a county.
Clause agreed to.
Lord Althorpthen proposed a clause relating to the appointment of Barristers to revise the list of voters.—Agreed to.
Lord Althorpalso proposed to add a clause, to the effect that lists of the voters should be printed, and sold at a reasonable price.
Mr. Wilkssuggested that the price should be fixed.
Clause agreed to.
Lord Althorpalso proposed a clause providing that the Justices of the Peace in the neighbourhood of Shoreham and Cricklade should have the power of dividing those places into convenient districts, so as that the poll should be conveniently taken.—Agreed to.
Lord Althorpsaid, there now remained one clause to be disposed of—he alluded to the money clause, which related to the payment of Barristers. He could not bring that clause before the Committee until tomorrow. He should therefore move, that the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again to-morrow, and he very sincerely trusted that it would be the last time when he should be called upon to make any similar motion.
House resumed; Committee to sit again next day.

MINUTES.
The Royal Assent was given by Commission to the Duchess of Kent's Annuity Bill; the Candle Duties' Repeal Bill; the Assessed and Land Taxes Receipt Bill, and some private Bills. Commissioners, the LORD CHANCELLOR, the Duke of RICHMOND, and the Earl of SHAFTESBURY.

SALE OF BEER ACT.
The Bishop of Londonpresented Petitions, praying for an Amendment in the Beer-Act, from the Magistrates and Clergy of Manchester and Salford, two from the Magistrates and Clergy of certain districts of Gloucester, and one from the inhabitants of Islington. Some of these Petitions stated that nothing less would do than to put these Beerhouses under the control of the Magistrates, both as to license and good conduct, in the same manner as other public-houses.
The Bishop of Bath and Wellspresented a Petition from part of his Diocese, to the same effect. The petitioners stated the demoralizing effects which had resulted from the Beer Act, of which he had no doubt their Lordships were fully aware, from the readiness with which those noble and learned Lords who were members of his Majesty's Government had listened to the suggestions that had been made to them on the subject, He therefore, hoped that one especial amendment would be made in the Bill, which was, that these beer-houses should be placed more under the control of the Magistracy. The calumnies that had been thrown out against the clergy for their interference in regard to this Act were unworthy of an answer. It was their duty narrowly to watch the effect of the measure, and to get the proper amendments introduced.
The Petitions to lie on the Table.
Viscount Melbourneproposed that the receiving of the report of the beer bill should be postponed for the present, and in

1169
the meantime he would take leave to throw out certain suggestions for the consideration of their Lordships. It had been proposed that these houses should be closed at certain specified hours; but it ought to be considered, that town and country were in a different situation in this respect, and that an hour which would be too early in town would be too late in the country. In order the better to enable their Lordships to understand this matter, he would state how the law had of late stood as to the ordinary public-houses, licensed by the Magistrates. Before the passing of the Act 3rd George 4th, cap. 77, the shutting up the houses at stated hours was left to the discretion of the Magistrates, who took upon themselves to decide at what hours public-houses should be shut in their several districts, under the provisions as to disorderly houses. The Act 3rd George 4th appeared to be founded rather on a suspicion of the Magistrates, and to limit rather than extend their discretionary power. It was there stated as a duty on the Magistrates, to take care that public-houses should not be kept open at a late hour in the night, or early in the morning, except for the reception of travellers. So the law stood from 1822 till the Act of 1828, which gave the Magistrates a discretionary power to interfere with such publicans as kept disorderly houses, and said nothing as to hours. Some Magistrates, therefore, thought that they had no right to interfere as to the hours at which a house was kept open, being of opinion that, under this Act, these houses might be kept open at all hours. Other Magistrates thought that they had still a right to interfere under the clause relating to disorderly houses, being of opinion that a house kept open at improper hours was to be considered a disorderly house. But in the new law nothing was said about hours, but only applied to persons wilfully keeping disorderly houses. Now he suggested to their Lordships whether it would not be better to revert in this respect to the Act of 3rd George 4th, cap. 77, and leave it to the Magistrates at their discretion to settle the hours at which public houses and beer-houses should be shut, of which hours the Magistrates might be bound to give due notice. This he threw out merely as a suggestion.
The Duke of Wellingtonhad no objection to the Magistrates deciding on the hours, but at the same time he thought
1170
that as to public-houses, they had the power, and ought to exercise it, of inserting in the license an obligation on the person to whom it was granted, to comply with the directions of the Magistrates. But there was this difference between the public-houses and the beer-houses that it was requisite that the public-houses should be licensed by the Magistrates, while the beer-houses were licensed by the Excise, and the Magistrates had not the same control over them.
The Earl of Harrowbydoubted whether the noble Secretary's proposed Amendment would answer his own object, for different opinions as to their power to interfere in the particular of hours might still prevail amongst Magistrates. If, therefore, the noble Secretary reverted to the provisions of the old law, it would be necessary to introduce an amendment; and if the hours were left to be settled by the Magistrates, an ultimate hour ought to be fixed by the Act. Then, as to Sundays, as the law at present stood, public-houses were to be shut between the hours of ten and one o'clock, and between the hours of three and five. By the former law they were directed to be shut during the time of morning and afternoon service. That appeared to be better than naming the hours, for the time of service might be different in different places; and then, under these words, it might be imperative on the keepers of public-houses to shut their houses between six and eight o'clock in places where evening service was performed in that interval.
The Marquis of Salisburythought the Magistrates had always the power to interfere as to hours under the words respecting disorderly houses. But if a doubt existed it ought to be removed. But there could be no fixed rule as to all houses, more especially as to the hours of Divine Service; and it would be better to leave the matter to be settled by the Magistrates. He would ask the noble Lord, whether the taking of sureties should not be placed in the hands of the Magistrates with respect to persons keeping these beer-houses, as with respect to those keeping public-houses.
Viscount Melbournewould consider that point.
Lord Suffieldthought, that care ought to be taken that gambling for money should not be allowed to prevail in these houses. The people ought to be made to under-

1171
stand, that gambling for money was unlawful; but he would not wish that it I should be stated in the Bill what particular games were unlawful. It would be much better to leave that to the discretion of the Magistrates. He was surprised to hear that a charge of hypocrisy had been preferred against those who had contended that gambling ought to be prevented among the lower orders, merely on the ground that this practice prevailed among a portion of the higher ranks. There was nothing that so much depraved the heart and morals as this vice. The bad effects of it was seen even in high life, among those who were addicted to it, and the effects were much worse among the lower orders, who were more liable to be driven to theft and depredation. Among the higher orders the gambling was carried on in private houses, and because these could not be got at, that was no reason why the poor should be permitted to gamble at public-houses. They might carry it on in private houses as well as the rich; but he certainly thought, that gaming ought to be put down in these public-houses and beerhouses.
The Bishop of Bath and Wellsobserved, that some Magistrates certainly did think that they had no power, under the present law, to interfere with public-houses as to the hours at which they should be shut, and therefore it would be a most salutary provision to introduce into the Act a clause which should define the powers of the magistracy with reference to these houses.
Lord Tenterdensaid, if there were any doubts as to the powers of the Magistrates in that respect, the doubts ought certainly to be removed, but after conferring the power on them to shut up these houses at particular hours, the matter ought to be left to the discretion of the Magistrates. He had no objection to apply the same rules to the public-houses and the beerhouses; but there was this difference between them, that the licenses for the public-houses were subject to the control of the Magistrates, while the licenses to the beer-houses were not.
Lord Teynhambegged to suggest, that the hours of shutting should be so regulated that the poor man might get his beer when his work was done.
Viscount Melbournesaid, the beer-shops ought to be put on the same footing, he presumed, as gin-shops or public-houses.
1172
The motion for postponing the receiving of the Report agreed to.

PETITION OF THE GRAND JURORS OF MIDDLESEX RELATIVE TO CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
The Duke of Sussex The Duke of Sussex rose, pursuant to notice, to present to the House a Petition on one of the most important subjects that could come under their Lordships' consideration; and were it not that he was aware that he should be assisted by several of their Lordships as well as by the Government, and particularly by his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, who had presented a petition to much the same effect to the House of Commons in the course of the last year, he should almost sink under a sense of his own inadequacy to do justice to the cause of the petitioners. The petitioners prayed, that their Lordships would take under their consideration the present state of the Criminal Law of this country, with a view to its revision and amendment; and to disconnect the punishment of death from crimes affecting merely the rights of property, but unaccompanied with violence and bloodshed. The petition was signed by no less than 1,100 individuals, who were all liable to serve as Grand Jurors for the county of Middlesex, and seven of whom had actually served as foremen in that capacity. Many of these were merchants and people of large property and of ninety-one of them the property amounted to no less than 20,000,000 l. sterling; so that their Lordships might be assured that they were people of respectability and consequence. The petitioners stated, that their own private feelings of humanity had at various times caused a struggle within themselves, lest, by finding persons guilty, they should be accessory to a judicial murder; and that this feeling sometimes induced Jurors and others to give what was vulgarly called a slip to the law, and that criminals, from this cause often escaped the hands of justice. He had heard that many of the petitioners had suffered severely from the crime of forgery, and yet had felt themselves compelled to refrain from prosecuting, because they would not be accessory to inflicting the punishment of death; and they had not only refrained from prosecuting, but had actually themselves assisted the criminals to escape the vigilance of the law, and to leave the country. It was not his intention at present to enter upon a long detail

1173
of particulars. He meant only to propose that the petition should be read, and that it should remain on their Lordships' Table; and, having done so, he would leave the subject in their Lordships' hands, trusting with confidence that their Lordships would pay a due regard to the prayer of the petition, and take this most important subject into their most serious consideration. He had likewise great confidence that the subject would be taken up by the present Government, for it was most fitting that it should be taken up by those, by whom a proper and efficient measure would be most likely to be prepared and passed. He had great confidence in his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, who had himself presented a similar petition to the Commons; and he had also great confidence in his noble friend at the head of the Administration, and in the other noble Lords who composed the Government, and fully trusted that they would pay proper attention to the subject. He was anxious that the matter should be taken up by Government, rather than by any private individual, as the Government was the most likely to act with the proper prudence and caution, as well as the best effect. He was not prepared to say, that the punishment of death ought to be entirely done away; but yet, when he saw the state of our own law on the subject, and that, as Sir W. Blackstone had stated, there were 160 crimes punishable by death, without the benefit of clergy, he could not help being astounded, and was convinced that such a system ought to be altered. In some cases the punishment of death might be necessary, but at the same time he could not help concluding, that the certainty of punishment would be much more efficient than its severity; and that in many cases other punishments, such as imprisonment, might be substituted with advantage for that of death, and then some means might be adopted for the reformation of the criminal. If this could be done with advantage, then it must be wise and prudent that it should be done; and now, when we professed to act on the principles of civil and religious liberty, it was high time that something should be done in that matter. He would only further add, that this was a most powerful petition, and remarkably well calculated to draw attention to the subject. It was signed, as he had stated, by 1,100 persons only, and the reason why it was not more
1174
numerously signed was, that the signatures of none were admitted except of those who were liable to serve on Grand Juries. Had it not been for that circumstance, it would have been signed by many thousands more, and particularly by the people called Quakers, none of whom had signed this petition, but who were ready to a man to come forward in support of its principles. This was not the time to enter into the merits of the subject; he would therefore leave the petition in the hands of their Lordships, trusting that his noble friend at the head of the Administration, and the rest of the members of the Government, would take the subject into their consideration. When the proper time came, he would state more at large his opinion on the subject, and support, with all his power, any proper measure that Government might think fit to propose, with a view to carry into effect the object of the petitioners. This was not a novel subject to him, for he had frequently and deeply considered it, although, not having before had any petition of this kind intrusted to him, he had not troubled their Lordships with a statement of his opinions. He, however, felt a great pride in the confidence that had been reposed in him by the present petitioners, although he should refrain from saying anything, further on the subject at present, lest he should overcharge it. He would, however, read to their Lordships a comparative statement of the number of persons committed for capital offences of late years in this country, as compared with those committed for capital offences in France. In 1825, 1,036 were committed in this country for capital offences; and in France 134. In 1826, in this country, 1,203 were so committed; in France 150. In 1827, there were so committed in this country, 1,529; in France 109. In 1828, there were so committed in this country, 1,165; in France 114; and in 1829, there were so committed in this country, 1,385; in France 89. He would proceed to read the petition. His Royal Highness read it accordingly as follows:
"To the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled—
"The Petition of the undersigned Inhabitant Householders of the City of London, liable to serve as Jurors—
"Humbly Showeth—That your Petitioners

1175
view with deep regret the excessive and indiscriminate severity of the Criminal Laws, which annex to offences of different degrees of moral guilt the punishment of Death, and confound the simple invasion of the rights of property with the most malignant and atrocious crimes against the person and life of man.
"That the recent Acts, passed with the professed intention to amend and improve the Criminal Laws, have not remedied the evil of which an enlightened community have the greatest reason to complain, but have still left those laws a disgrace to our civilization, by retaining the opprobrious distinction of being the most sanguinary of any in Europe.
"That Christianity, common reason, and sound policy, demand that the laws which affect the liberties and the lives of men, should proportion the punishment to the offence, and not teach cruelty to the people, by examples of vindictive legislation.
"That where public opinion does not go along with the laws, the persons who suffer under them are regarded as the victims of legislative tyranny or judicial caprice, and not as criminals, whose doom has been pronounced by the voice of dispassionate justice.
"That the criminals executed in this country are selected out of a far greater number sentenced to death, and where the practice condemns the law, the law ought to be altered, that criminals might suffer the punishment of their guilt by the authority of defined Statutes, and not by the uncertain and capricious rule of judicial discretion.
"That in the present state of the law, Juries feel extremely reluctant to convict, when the penal consequences of the offence excite a conscientious horror on their minds, lest the rigorous performance of their duty as Jurors should make them accessory to judicial murder. Hence, in Courts of Justice, a most unnecessary and painful struggle is occasioned by the conflict of the feelings of a just humanity, with the sense of the obligation of an oath.
"That witnesses also are very frequently reluctant to give evidence, as well as Jurors to convict, lest they might bring upon their consciences the stain of blood; and thus criminals who, under a more rational and considerate Code of Laws, would meet the punishment due to their crimes, escape with complete impunity.
"That for these reasons, your Petitioners humbly pray your Right Honourable House to take the Criminal Laws into your consideration, for the purpose of the revision and amendment of the same, by drawing a distinction between the simple invasion of the rights of property, and crimes of violence and blood, and by abolishing the penalty of Death in all cases in which the Legislative power cannot justify, in the eyes of God and man, that last and dreadful alternative—the extermination of the offender.
"And your Petitioners will ever pray, &c.
"[Signed by the different Foremen res-
1176
pectively of seven successive Old Bailey Grand Juries of 1830, and by upwards of eleven hundred Merchants, Traders, &c., who either have served, or are eligible to serve, as Jurors.]"
The Lord Chancellorsaid, the subject was certainly of very great importance, and well worthy of the most profound consideration; but none of their Lordships were called upon to express any opinion on the matter referred to in the petition at present; and he should have hardly obtruded himself on their Lordships' attention, had it not been that he had been particularly and personally alluded to by his Royal Highness. No one was at present, however, called on to give an opinion on this, certainly not simple, but, on the contrary, very complicated and intricate question. That it was one which deserved the utmost degree of attention was undeniable. There was one thing mentioned in the petition, however, which had better, perhaps, have been mentioned in the other House, or anywhere else than in their Lordships' House, which was the highest Court of Appeal, not only in civil, but in criminal causes. After long consideration and practical experience, he had certainly been led to conclude that our Penal Laws were capable of much amendment in respect of the severity of punishments. But when the petitioners called for the abolition of the punishment of death, in regard to all crimes against property, if unattended with murder or personal violence, he felt himself called upon to declare, that he was not prepared to draw the line exactly in that manner; for nothing, in his opinion, could be less judicious than thus to class crimes which might be of a very different character, under the same denomination. Why was it that it was held right to put a murderer to death? Not, certainly, because it had been said in Scripture, "Whoso sheddeth a man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." They had no right to put even a murderer to death for any other reason than that it was expedient that he should be put to death. They had no other right nor warrant, either in reason or religion. The object was, to prevent others from committing the crime of murder; and as the comfortable existence of society depended on the repression of that highest crime, it was expedient to secure its repression by attaching to its commission the highest penalty. When a murder was committed, or any very great evil had

1177
happened, they had no right to inflict another great evil on the community by putting the offender to death, except that it was necessary that the second evil should be inflicted, because the good of society required that all means, even the severest, should be used in order to check the crime of murder. It was right, because no man could be safe unless the gravest offences were checked by the gravest penalties. But there were other offences which, although not of such great and direct injury to society as murder, yet had a very strong tendency to the devastation and subversion of society; and he was not prepared to say, that in all cases of that description, even although not attended with violence and bloodshed, the highest punishment ought to be dispensed with. They ought not to judge of these things simply upon the ground of vague feelings of humanity; for, in spite of all such feelings, if there was no other mode of preventing crimes which, although not attended with immediate personal violence, yet were of a description to lead to the subversion of society, then recourse must be had to the severest punishment. He wished, therefore, to guard himself from being understood that murder was the only crime for which death ought to be inflicted. There was no warrant in Scripture for the notion that murder was the only crime for which the punishment of death ought to be inflicted, and he asked the noble Lord, who seemed to intimate that murder was, by Scripture, the only crime to which the punishment of death should be inflicted, to point out the place where it was prohibited in cases of other crimes. It was, indeed, said, "That whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed;" but that was an injunction, and not a prohibition; and if the noble Lord would examine the Levitical law, he would find that ninety-nine crimes out of a hundred were made punishable by death. So, in cases of arson, and of robbery with great violence, almost all men admitted, that the punishment of death ought to be inflicted. He, therefore, was not prepared to draw the line so distinctly as it had been drawn by the petitioners, and he had guarded himself by a similar declaration when he presented a petition, to a certain extent similar to the present, in the other House. But the petitioners had stated facts which were of great importance. They stated that
1178
some of them had served as Foremen of Grand Juries, and that all of them were liable to serve as Grand Jurymen—that many of them were men of great property, and were engaged in commercial pursuits, which, in a particular manner, exposed them to severe losses from frauds, and especially from forgery, which was obviously the crime to which the petitioners more particularly alluded, and of which they were principally the victims. It was certainly a most important fact, that these persons came forward and told their Lordships that they could find no security against that crime in capital punishment. They said, that they were extremely reluctant to prosecute, but if they did not prosecute, that, to be sure, was their own fault. But then they said, that witnesses could not be brought to give evidence, and that Jurors could not be brought to convict; and then they might put their case simply on the ground, that practically the present state of the law had been tried, and had failed of its effect. That was the most important part of the petition, although he was far from undervaluing their feelings of humanity, and had no doubt but that they were excellent men. But there was one part of their petition which, in his opinion, could not be sanctioned by their Lordships. He, at least, could not understand how honourable men, serving on Juries, could trifle with their oaths. The oath administered to the Jury in criminal cases was, "You shall well and truly try, and a true deliverance make, between our Sovereign Lord the King and the prisoner at the bar, and a true verdict give, according to the evidence. So help you God." And yet they appeared disposed suddenly to forget their character of Jurors, and to erect themselves into legislators. In this character of lawgivers, they not only made a new law for them selves, but appeared to think that, in the face of their oath, they might be justified in giving a verdict against the evidence. How any honourable man could reconcile this to his conscience, he could not conceive. The Jury had no more to do than say, whether, in point of fact, the crime had been committed; and it was for the Judge to award the punishment: and he could award only that which the law had prescribed. He could not comprehend how it was possible for them to reconcile it to their consciences to pronounce a man not guilty, when the weight of evidence

1179
preponderated against him. As a lawyer, as a Judge, and as a legislator, he could see no grounds on which any man could reconcile to his conscience such a course of conduct. If it was a crime to inflict the punishment of death in such cases, the crime was not that of the Jurors, but of the Legislature; and until the law was altered, the former were bound to act by it. It was impossible to conceive the extent of the evils, to which such an improper assumption of power must lead; one Jury man might say, he would not take the question of law from the Judge, but would decide both upon the law and upon the fact; another might say, he would not only decide upon the guilt of the prisoner, but would determine the quantum of punishment—a point which rested with the Judge alone. Again, another Juror might deem it proper to admit hearsay evidence, and many books had been written to prove, that such evidence ought to be received. And supposing such a doctrine to be entertained, what would be the consequence? Why, the Judge having determined that such admission was contrary to the law, the Juryman would say, "I do not think so, and therefore I am determined to convict the prisoner." In that position, according to his judgment, were the petitioners placed; for though an offence should be proved by ten or any other number of witnesses against a prisoner, and though that offence might subject the individual to the last and extreme penalty of the law, these Jurors were prepared to say, and not only to say, but to act upon, and defend the position—they who, in their capacity of Jurymen, had entered into a solemn compact with their King, their country, and their God, to decide upon the evidence, and the evidence alone—these Jurors would say, that they would not convict the prisoner, whose guilt had been proved:—and why? Because they were afraid, that if they did find him guilty, he might receive the punishment which the law has awarded as a proper atonement for his offence. If there were any course likely to prevent the Legislature from interfering, it would be this, where individuals take the matter into their own hands, and out of those of the Judges, and of the Legislature. If the law be defective, as to a certain extent it was, and if it be necessary that it should be amended, as it ought to be, the only manner in which that law ought to be altered and amended, was by
1180
the interference of the King, Lords, and Commons of England; and until that period arrived, those individuals had no right to contravene the law, but in obedience to their oath they were to find the person guilty or not guilty, according to the evidence, and the prisoner thereupon must suffer the consequences of his act under the law. Another person might take a different ground of objection, and say, as a suitor in the Court of Chancery did the other day, who came into that Court for advice about putting in his answer—that he was not enabled by his conscience to take the necessary oath required by law:—At length he asked if he were bound to take the oath? Yes, was the answer, and he was told, that if any guilt was occasioned by the taking of the oath, that must rest upon the shoulders of those who made the law, and not on those who were bound to obey it. If it be criminal for a person to commit a forgery, was it not criminal for another person, who was to sit in judgment on that forgery, to take an oath which, from the first, he intended never to fulfil? A Juryman should have his conscience void of offence, and leave the responsibility that arises from the operation of the law, which he has sworn to execute, on the shoulders of the Legislature. He had known men whose minds had been so strangely constituted on the subject of taking an oath, as to think they were justified in supposing that no man ought to be examined on oath, and they would rather have seen an innocent man hanged for a capital offence—aye, even for murder, than give evidence on oath, to bring the guilty man to condign punishment. If men chose to give up their property rather than prosecute an offender, they did so upon their own responsibility, though it was under a mistaken view of what was due to society; but as respects a Juryman, he was bound to act by the law, and according to the law, and no qualification, with which he might endeavour to fortify his mind, could be a justification for the nonfulfilment of it; he must act according to the law, and the guilt, if any, must be upon the heads of the legislature until that law be repealed. He was deeply impressed with the importance of the subject which had been brought under their notice by the noble and illustrious Duke, and while he was prepared to go as far as any of their Lordships in mitigating the severity

1181
of a severe and indiscriminate code of criminal legislation—and while he should be the first to hail any change in that respect, which should afford a proper and sufficient protection to property, with a less infliction of pain, he should be among the last who, until that period should have arrived, would be prepared to sanction the principle avowed by any individuals, be they who they might, who thought that they had a right to violate the law and the solemn obligation which their oath imposed upon them.
Lord Tenterdensaid, that the petitioners ought to consider, that those who suffered death were very few in comparison to those who committed the offences which were by law punishable with death. With regard to that part of the illustrious Duke's address, in which he drew a comparison between the number of persons committed in this country and in France, he begged to be permitted to remark, that some reference ought to be made to the fact, that the difference in the number of offences against the law, was not so great as between the number of offences punishable with death. He also desired, that the good and respectable persons who had signed the petition should bear in mind, that the royal prerogative of mercy, was exercised with the greatest anxiety to mitigate the penalties of the law, and he must further declare, that the Judges were most desirous to recommend to the mercy of the Crown every case punishable with death, in which the circumstances would allow of such consideration. He was sure they felt the utmost anxiety and solicitude to discover any circumstances which could lead them to recommend a mitigation of punishment.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, in reference to the statement of the illustrious Duke, when he compared the extent of crime in England with that which existed in other countries, it ought to be remembered, that there was not in this country, and could not be, from the nature of our laws and Constitution a preventive police, such as existed in those other countries, which contributed greatly to check the growth of crime. A want of attention to this fact often led to erroneous conclusions.
The Duke of Sussexsaid, he had listened with great satisfaction to the remarks of both the noble and learned Lords, with regard to the petition he had the
1182
honour to present, and he heartily congratulated himself, that he had been the instrument, which had brought forth such important observations. He begged to be permitted to say, that he had not pledged himself entirely to the contents of the petition, although he went a great part of the way along with the petitioners. He perfectly agreed with the opinion of his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, that the Juror ought to fulfil the oath he took, and he also fully agreed with the remark of the other noble and learned Lord, that it was highly desirable not to alter or limit the prerogative of the Crown to interpose and prevent executions, particularly in the hands of the illustrious individual who now exercised it. He hoped the subject would be brought under the consideration of Parliament by his Majesty's Government, but he was aware that at the present moment their attention was wholly absorbed by another great measure. He trusted he might remark in reference to what the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) had observed with respect to a preventive police, knowing the arbitrary manner in which a power of this kind was wielded in other countries, he should be very unwilling to sacrifice the liberties we enjoyed to possess such a security as that alluded to.
Lord Suffieldsaid, he agreed with most of the allegations contained in the petition which had been presented by the illustrious Duke. It appeared to him, that the two great principles which ought to govern the punishment of criminal law, should be certainty in the first place; and the punishment being graduated according to the nature of the crime, in the second place. The present system had the effect of making injured persons reluctant to prosecute, and Juries indisposed to convict. With regard to the unwillingness of Jurors he would add nothing after the eloquent exposition of their duties by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack; but of the effect of the law, in inducing persons not to prosecute who had sustained injuries, he knew an instance which had occurred within a few months, in which a person put up with a loss of upwards of 1,400 l. rather than prosecute, because that person knew the life of a fellow creature might be forfeited by his doing so.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, the illustrious Duke appeared to misunderstand the remarks he had made on the

1183
subject of a preventive police, and seemed to consider that he (the Duke of Wellington) desired the introduction of such a system into this country; he had no such desire; so far from it, that he had stated, such an institution was not compatible with the institutions of this free country.
The Duke of Sussexbegged most earnestly to assure the noble Duke, he did not mean to say any thing of the sort. He certainly did not understand the noble Duke had recommended the introduction of a preventive police; his remarks were meant to apply to such a force generally.
Petition to lie on the Table.

REVENUES OF CANADA.
Viscount Goderich,in moving the third reading of the Canadian Revenue Bill, wished, as shortly as possible, to state the grounds on which he asked their Lordships to assent to his motion. In the year 1774, duties were imposed by the British Parliament on articles of various kinds imported into Quebec, for the purpose of forming a fund for the support of the Civil Government in Canada, and under the authority of that Act of Parliament, the money so levied was directed to be applied by warrant from the Treasury. At that period there was no legislative power exercised in Canada. In the year 1791, however, Parliament granted to the province of Canada a Constitution, consisting of two legislative bodies, and Canada was divided into two portions, Upper and Lower Canada. From this time the Legislative Assembly and Council formed, with the Governor, a complete legislative government, in whom was vested the right of imposing taxes and rates, to meet the exigencies of these provinces, with certain exceptions in respect to particular articles of trade and commerce, to be imported into them. In 1795, the legislative body granted in perpetuity the sum of 5,000 l. a-year, in aid of the funds appropriated towards the expenses of the civil government, which for a long time proved sufficient for the purpose. But at a subsequent period this sum became inadequate, and it was necessary for the British Parliament to vote money for the purpose of maintaining the civil establishments in Canada. The expenses of the government, however, had a natural tendency to increase, and at length they exceeded the sum voted by Parliament, and it then became necessary for that government to apply to this coun-
1184
try to make up the deficiency. It must be quite obvious to their Lordships, that from the moment it became necessary to apply to Parliament for relief it acquired a power of control. In progress of time, however, the Legislative Assembly, feeling that the executive was, as regarded these funds, in some dependence on it, wished to appropriate those duties, which by the Act of 1774, were to be appropriated by virtue of the warrants of the Lords of the Treasury, and it applied to the British Government for its approval of this wish. As regarded the question at law, there could be no doubt whatever that the law imposed upon the Lords of the Treasury the duty of issuing warrants for the purpose of appropriating that money; but the obligations of the law did not remove the constitutional objections, which were made to that appropriation on the part of the Assembly, and a discussion ensued, which had the effect of placing the executive government of the colony, and the other branches of the legislature, in a state of constant collision. The result was, first to cause, and then to widen, the breach between the different branches of the legislature, when every principle of policy rendered it most desirable that the utmost harmony should exist between them. The subject, after various attempts to settle the disputes, was taken into consideration by a Committee of the other House, to which it was referred on the part of his Majesty's Government. This particular part of the question was examined at very considerable length by that Committee, which recommended that the money levied by virtue of the Act of 1774, should be laid out according to the approbation of the Legislative Assembly and Council of Canada, on condition that they would undertake to provide a fixed and permanent income for the Governor and the Judges. There could be no doubt, that it was of infinite importance that the Governor of the colony, representing his Majesty, and the judicial body discharging such important functions, should be rendered independent of the fluctuating opinions and feelings of any separate branch of the legislature; and therefore it was recommended, with much propriety, that whatever arrangement was made with regard to other persons, some mode should be fixed for the permanent and certain payment of the Governor and the Judges. The Report of that Committee was presented to the other House of

1185
Parliament in the year 1828. During the following Session the time and attention of Parliament were occupied in the consideration of a very great question, in which the country took a deep interest; and this circumstance precluded Parliament from taking any step towards getting rid of this difficulty. The warrants of the Lords of the Treasury were withheld, in consequence of the recommendation of the Committee with respect to the Judges not having been complied with. A very embarrassing state of things followed. The Governor was placed in a situation of extreme difficulty; quarrels ensued between him and the legislative body, which continued through several years, and made the colony a scene of unpleasant contention. In the year 1830, his right hon. friend who succeeded him as Secretary of State, introduced a bill into the other House for the purpose of bringing this matter to a conclusion; and that bill, as first introduced, was to this effect:—it provided, that after retaining a given sum for the purpose of meeting certain specified charges, all the surplus money receivable under the Act of 1774, should be paid over to the Treasury, to be at the disposal of the Legislature. It was afterwards found out, however, that this was a very imperfect mode of settling the question, because it reproduced, or rather re-enacted, the very point in dispute. The alterations which were made, began by enacting that the whole sum should be placed at the disposal of the Legislature, provided a copy of the civil list was furnished; and they also contained an original proviso, that if such an arrangement, was not acceded to, then 20,000 l. should be returned. The arrangement still kept alive the point in dispute, and it consequently appeared liable to objection, and far from a satisfactory mode of settling the question. That bill, however, did not become a law; it was one of those measures which was interrupted in its progress by the demise of the Crown, and the dissolution of Parliament. The matter remained in this state when the Seals of the Colonial Department were confided to him. He would have been happy to follow the course chalked out by his right hon. friend; but on the best consideration he could give the question, after an attentive perusal of the correspondence, and after a conference with many persons extremely competent to form correct opinions, he became satisfied that the provisions contained in that
1186
Bill could not succeed, and he had then to consider what mode could be adopted, by which the matter might be amicably settled, without any derogation from the dignity of the Crown and Parliament of England, and, at the same time, without requiring from the Legislature in Canada any unreasonable concession. It appeared to him, that the best course would be, to apply to the case of Canada the same principle that had been just applied to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, namely, to place at the disposal of the Legislature there the revenues of Canada, and, at the same time, to have a Civil List, which the Governor was directed to prepare: he was authorized to receive and listen to any objections that might be made to it. That course was perfectly constitutional and reasonable; and he flattered himself that the provision would have been favourably received, and would answer the object for which it was intended; particularly as the Governor was instructed, that in the Civil List which he was to endeavour to obtain, in lieu of the duties which he was authorized to give up, he should insert the salaries of the Governor and those of the Judges, intending thereby to ensure by this arrangement the attainment of the two important objects he had explained to their Lordships. In the province of Upper Canada, this proposition was favourably received, and the Legislature there passed a Bill, in which a permanent provision was made for the payment of the salaries of the Governor, the Judges, the Solicitor General, and some other Officers. The Governor, by virtue of his instructions, accepted that Bill, and if the measure under consideration was agreed to, it would give effect to the law which the Assembly and Council of Upper Canada then passed. In Lower Canada, however, the Legislative Assembly did not accede to the proposition, not thinking it expedient to proceed at that time to the consideration of the question. They did not positively refuse, but they returned that answer. If he had considered that this proceeding on, their part, arose from any insuperable objections likely to be thrown in the way of the final adjustment of the question, he certainly should not have been disposed to include Lower Canada in that Bill; but being convinced that this answer was dictated by a variety of other matters, that had been in progress of angry discussion for a very considerable time, he had in-

1187
cluded Lower Canada, expecting a better disposition in a short time. Of course, if the province of Lower Canada did not pass an Act to give salaries to the Governor and Judges, as far as that province was concerned, the subject would remain in exactly the same situation as at present, and the House must ascertain whether any other mode could be adopted by which these difficulties could be removed. He hoped, however, that no such necessity would arise. That which was proposed ought to satisfy the Legislature of Canada. Without introducing anything unfit to be adopted, it was the duty of the Government to endeavour to further the welfare of both these colonies, which were most important on account of their geographical positions. One of the most essential objects at which their Lordships could aim, was, to secure a good understanding and perfect harmony between this country and her colonial possessions, which were in many respects essential to her strength and security; and if it were necessary to sacrifice some trifling interests, yet this object was of so much importance, that he should call upon their Lordships to sanction a Bill which would give contentment to Canada. He certainly should not be disposed to advise his Majesty to give his assent to the present Bill, until the Canadian Assemblies agreed to provide, in the manner he had pointed out for the expenses of the civil Government and the administration of justice; but he believed that that Assembly would do what was just and due to the mother country.
Earl Bathurstwas of opinion, that nothing could be more improper than to leave Judges to be provided for by an annual vote of the Colonial Legislature; and he thought that the noble Lord, before introducing this measure, ought either to have obtained the consent of the legislative assemblies of the Canadas to make a permanent provision for the Civil Government and the Judges, or he should have inserted into the Bill a proviso, to render it inoperative unless such an agreement was come to. He had no doubt that his noble friend had kept the object in view of having a proper provision made for the Governor and Judges, but he feared the measure would have the effect of placing the Governor in opposition to the Assembly, because he would be the party who was to accept or reject the Bill, am it might not be advisable always to give
1188
the Governor this uncontrolled power. Their Lordships would, however, recollect, that there was not much doubt with respect to the operation of the Act, 14th Geo. 3rd, which was to continue for upwards of twenty years. First, 5,000 l. was granted under it, then another 5,000 l. was required, and when an application was made to the Colonial Assembly for this addition, they said, "If you apply to us or additional votes, we surely have a right to know in what manner you are to expend it;" and they certainly had a right, such circumstances, to say they would object to any expenses which, in their opinion, were improper, and, upon this ground it was, that the circumstances occurred which his noble friend had described with regard to the Treasury warrant. The circumstances of the Civil List were essentially different from those which his noble friend had cited as precedents, and he (Earl Bathurst) considered it would be unadvisable to place the whole of this sum at the mercy of the Colonial Legislative Assembly, to be provided by annual votes, the consequence of which would be, the officers to be paid under it would look with some anxiety to the effect their conduct might have on the Colonial Assembly with respect to the receipt of their salaries. His noble friend had stated, that a fixed and permanent provision would be made for the Governor and Judges under this Bill: he had no doubt his noble friend thought so; but he (Earl Bathurst) could not consider it in that light, and he most decidedly objected to the Governor and Judges being provided for by an annual vote of the Legislative Assembly, which, he feared, would injure the integrity and impartiality of the administration of justice.
Viscount Goderichsaid, if he understood the noble Earl correctly, he did not object to the Judges having a permanent salary, but to their being paid by annual grants voted by the Colonial Assembly. There had been very great difficulties in bringing this point to a satisfactory conclusion, and he must then say, that he did not feel the force of his noble friend's objection. If the Bill were passed without this clause, the question would remain just as it was, and he must say for himself, he had not the smallest intention of giving one party an improper control over another.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that if this Bill was agreed to, the effect would

1189
be, that a fund would be provided ove which the government of Canada alone had control, and if it did not exercise the power to the satisfaction of the Government at home, the Treasury would have no control over it. The effect of the noble Lord's Bill would go to deprive the Legislature here of all the power it at present possessed. He did not see, if that Bill received their Lordships' sanction, what was to prevent the Canadian legislatures doing what they pleased with their revenue. He, therefore, agreed with the noble Earl, that some qualifying provision ought to be introduced into the Bill. It was a question whether some of the provisions of that Bill might not interfere with the independence and functions of the Judges of the land.
Viscount Goderichthought the administration of justice ought to remain as it was at present, but he certainly was of opinion, taking into consideration the increased expenses, that the legislature of Canada should possess a control over its own revenues, which he was certainly not disposed to think very objectionable in itself, nor likely to lead to the consequences which his noble friends seemed to anticipate.
Bill read a third time and passed.